Answer:
Explanation:
1. Accessory before the fact = Thus is someone who encourages or assist others to commit a crime but the person wasn't present as the crime scene. This person is also criminally liable as they can be deemed to be an accomplice as well.
An example of an accessory before the fact is someone giving his car to a thief to go an use to rob.
2 Accessory after the fact= This is an individual that harbors, or conceals someone else that has committed a crime even though he or she is aware of the crime committed by the person. The individual keeps the person so that the person won't be arrested or sentenced to jail.
3 Accessory during the fact= This is someone who witnesses a particular crime but doesn't try to prevent or stop it.
Answer: True
Explanation:
Senators may debate each amendment without limit unless the Senate (1) agrees to a motion ... the text of the bill; a second-degree amendment proposes to change the text of a first-degree The Senate then acts on the committee amendments, after amendment is numbered at the time it is offered and read on the floor.
The Constitution of Canada (French: Constitution du Canada) is the supreme law in Canada.[1] It outlines Canada's system of government and the civil and human rights of those who are citizens of Canada and non-citizens in Canada.[2] Its contents are an amalgamation of various codified acts, treaties between the Crown and indigenous peoples (both historical and modern), uncodified traditions and conventions. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world.[3]
According to subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982), acts and orders referred to in its schedule (including in particular the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act, 1867), and any amendments to these documents.[4] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the list is not exhaustive and also includes a number of pre-confederation acts and unwritten components as well.[5] See list of Canadian constitutional documents for details
If the President should sign such a law in place the effect would be:
- A. The value of the marginal product of apple pickers increases.
- B. The equilibrium price of apples increases.
- E. The marginal product of apple pickers increases.
<h3>What would be the effect of the Presidents policy on the economy?</h3>
By asking that the consumption of apples be increased, it would lead to a rise in the demand for apples in the country.
When this happens, it means that the revenue of apple growers would rise in the country due to increased demand.
Complete question:
Suppose that the president proposes a new law aimed at reducing healthcare costs: All Americans are required to eat one apple daily.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the effect of this apple-a-day law? Check all that apply.
A. The value of the marginal product of apple pickers increases.
B. The equilibrium price of apples increases.
C. The demand for apples remains unchanged.
D. The demand for apple pickers remains unchanged.
E. The marginal product of apple pickers increases.
F. The wage of apple pickers increases
Read more on demand here: brainly.com/question/1245771
